ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two writ petitions No. 19797 of 1998 and 75 of 1999 both of which are directed against the same notifications issued by the State of Haryana under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act). Since the arguments were addressed in civil writ petition No. 19797 of 1998 the facts are being taken from this case.

(2.) By notification issued on 22.10.1997 under Section 4 of the Act, the Governor of Haryana declared his intention to acquire 70 acres and 12.39 acres of land in village Chouma Hadbast No.62 and Carterpuri Hadbast No.63 respectively in Tehsil and District Gurgaon for a public purpose, namely for the development and utilisation of land for residential, commercial and institutional Sectors 1, 2, 23 and 23-A at Gurgaon in the State of Haryana as shown in the development plan. The object was to develop the area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The notification was published as required by Section 4 of the Act inviting objections from persons interested. They were required to file their objections in writing before the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Gurgaon within thirty days from the publications of the notification, it is common ground between the parties that the petitioners did not file their objections even though their land was included in the . notification. Some of the landowners had filed objections which were considered by the Land Acquisition Collector who submitted his report to the State Government and the latter after considering the same publishing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act by issuing the notification in the official gazette on 16.10.1998.

(3.) The primary grievance made in the writ petitions is that the land is being acquired by the State Government for the benefit of a private colonizer namely the Ansals and that the same is to be handed over to them for development which, according to the petitioners, is illegal because provisions of Part VII of the Act have not been complied with. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is emphatically denied that the land is being acquired for the development of the area by Ansals or that it is being acquired for any company. Learned Assistant Advocate General on receipt of instructions from the departmental representatives who were present in court stated before us that the land has been acquired for a public purpose as mentioned in the impugned notifications and that it will not be handed over to the Ansals for development and that the allegations made by the petitioners in this regard were imaginary and without any basis. In view of the statement made by the learned State counsel, it is not necessary for us to examine this contention any further. Since the land is not being acquired for any company or for the Ansals, it was not necessary for the respondents to comply with the provisions of Part VII of the Act. We have, therefore, ho hesitation in rejecting this ground of attack.